DragonTrain

Your thoughts on this article.

21 posts in this topic

Eh, it's interesting, and I agree with his criticism of abstinence-only education, and his understanding of the Bible is pretty good. His history needs some work, though, as does his interpretation of statistics. Oh, and dude needs to stop with the MASS generalizations. I'm pretty sure that most American men aren't trying their hardest to avoid marriage. I call bullshit.

 

Flappers were women with financial means, so hardly the entire population of women in the 20s, so their sexual activity doesn't reflect that of all women.

 

Older societies often took an engagement much more seriously than we do today, like it was basically the marriage before God, and so having sex after a formal betrothal, but before the wedding, was okay. That wasn't considered fornication. And the reason 40% of women today aren't pregnant on their wedding day is because of a little thing I like to call birth control.

 

And the divorce rate has never actually been 50%.

 

I'm only working a half-day, so I need to get a lot done this morning. Otherwise I'd pull up some precise sources on the flappers and engagement. I also regret not having more time to pick this article apart. Pretty much the only thing he says that's not dripping with sexism is that women have needs and desires too.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, he's woefully naive if he thinks that "Here was Jesus Christ, preaching warmth and generosity and inclusion and love; and there were his disciples, preaching coldness and horror and expulsion and everlasting damnation."

 

It's all very well and good to say, "Oh, Jesus would NEVER be against fornication, because He's all about inclusion and love, and that'd just be coldness!" But actually read the Gospels. Jesus tells people, "If you have sex with a divorced woman, that's adultery. And entertaining sexual thoughts about women you're not married to - that's a kind of adultery, too. And all you guys in the Temple, you pack up your market stalls and your money before I use this whip."

 

Yes, Jesus is loving, but love doesn't mean you don't tell someone that what they're doing is wrong. Plus, the writer freely admits that he rejected the apostolic letters as being scriptural because, and I quote: "These were not the Word of God or Jesus; they were the concoctions of followers." He actually has the gall to say, "The apostles, at least the ones quoted in most of the epistles, didn't get it; they had no idea what the message Jesus was actually trying to convey was." Really? So these men, who actually met Jesus in person and listened to what He taught first-hand, they know less about what Jesus taught than you do? Frankly, I find that very arrogant - these are the men who were executed for their beliefs, and all you can say is, "They didn't get it"?

 

*sigh* Okay, deep breath...

 

Then, the writer tells us about the sex education that he got in high school. Fair enough, it sounds pretty dreadful. The fact that the priest couldn't even answer a basic question (and it is a basic objection - we've all heard the "you wouldn't buy XYZ without trying it first" argument) is pretty pathetic.

 

The writer actually argues something I found pretty shocking: "you can be as picky about whom you want to sleep with as anything else. But if you really like someone, and you want to be with her and you don't want her to leave, then yes - you should probably be intimate with her." That part in bold is in the original text. The writer believes that it's okay to have sex with someone, even if you don't actually want to, just so they'll stay with you. Isn't that the opposite of what we teach kids nowadays? Don't even non-WTM sex education courses teach that if your boyfriend or girlfriend pressures you into something you're not comfortable with, you should say no, even if they threaten to leave you? And here's this writer giving this as advice? It baffles me.

 

Then, there's a lovely passage all about how animal life evolved from asexual to sexual reproduction (On a side note, the scientists think that the first creatures to have sex were native to Scotland). He argues that, since animals test out sexual partners (actually, not all of them do), it must be okay for humans to do it. That argument is pretty silly: "Animals do it, therefore it's fine for humans to do it." Okay, but if that's our standard for what constitutes moral behaviour, then sex outside of marriage is fine, as is rape, incest, murder, cannibalism, necrophilia, paedophilia, and of course, killing your partner right after having sex with them. That's hardly a good argument. Likewise, he argues that throughout history, people were having sex outside of marriage. Well, duh. They were also doing all those things I mentioned above. "Everybody's doing it" is again not a good argument.

 

Oh, I really hated this part. He talks about a famous Bollywood movie where a man is falsely sent to prison for 20 years, and his fiancée waits for him all that time, till his release and their marriage. He agrees that this is a lovely story, but then argues that that "pure true selfless undying love" like that does not exist outside of movies.

 

Let me just quote the whole thing:

 

The horror, right? That pure true selfless undying love does not exist!
 
Well, sure. It's horrible that aliens with advanced technology who want to come bring us world peace and eternal life don't exist either, but they don't (at least not in this arm of the Milky Way Galaxy, so far as any of us has seen). Oh well, you move on, figure out how the world actually is, and maximize your happiness and the happiness of those around you within it.
 
And the fewer social constraints there are on individuals, the fewer social constructs there are to limit and direct and guide their movements, the more people tend to do what they evolved and are programmed to do.

 

 

Well, aren't you a romantic? Selfless undying love doesn't exist, but oh well, we move on? If I went on a date with someone, and he said, "I don't believe in selfless undying love", I'd be dumping him right then and there! Also, isn't this supposed to be the guy who said Jesus was all about love? How can you say that if you don't even believe true love exists? Jesus died on the cross because of selfless love, and the writer doesn't think there is such a thing? You can't have it both ways! I don't believe this guy is really made of stone. I think it's just a front he's putting up as a way of getting around his instinctual feelings of, "Isn't demanding sex before marriage or you'll leave them rather unloving? Wouldn't you wait, if you really loved someone? Oh, well, I guess true love doesn't exist."

 

*sigh* Deep breath...

 

Then, this writer dares to say that if a guy won't have sex before marriage: "A woman will call him a nice guy...but in her heart, she will view him as impotent, weak, and not a man." Speak for yourself! Some women might, but those are exactly the kinds of women he shouldn't be marrying anyway. Why would you want to be with someone who undermined your values, or made fun of you because of your deepest beliefs? Find a woman who will respect you! There are lots of us!

 

Another quote:

 

Women are not shoes; they are living, breathing, sentient biological organisms, with wills and drives of their own. And if you think that you can bind a woman to you without the ties of sexual relations... without giving her what she needs and wants and demands out of a romantic partner, and not a man she is "just friends" with or neutral with... you still have much to learn about sexual relations.

 

 

Sorry, but who are you to tell me what I "need and want and demand"? Well done: you've worked out that women are not objects. Did it not occur to you that women are also individuals, not some faceless mass to be lumped together? 

 

*sigh* Deep breath...

 

I love how the article talks about sex and reproduction, but conveniently leaves out any mention pregnancy or STDs that could result from those multiple sexual partners all women want. The closest he got was that condemnation of his high school education, where they told them about a girl who got pregnant and got an STD the first time she had sex. He says he wouldn't accept that because it was statistically so unlikely - fair enough. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen, does it? If you're having multiple sexual partners before marriage, then that's statistically pretty likely - some STDs are extremely common. And if pregnancy happens against the odds, then what? Well, of course, he doesn't say.

 

If I mentioned it to him, he'd probably just say, "Oh, stop scaremongering. The Pill only has a 3% failure rate". So? That'd be like staking your kid's college fund on a best because you thought there was only a small chance you'd lose. In fact, it's even worse than that. You are playing Russian Roulette with someone's life! Yes, it's unlikely you'll get a woman pregnant and risk your own child's future to growing up without their dad, or even being aborted because neither you or the woman were prepared for a baby. Yes, it's unlikely you'll contract a life-threatening STD (although the odds are pretty high that you'll catch something). But why are you even taking the risk? You wouldn't do that to a woman you loved! It's as if you don't believe in love!

 

...Oh, wait.

 

Okay, I'm done with this. This guy makes me angry. On the plus side, I'm not going to be the one who'll end up marrying him. Good luck, "Chase".

 

xxx

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Jegsy's comments did give me some level of relief.

 

I suspect, though, that most women would immediately put you into the "friend" zone if you weren't actively pursuing sex.

 

It really hurts, but most people are hopelessly corrupt, and the few people with values are looked upon negatively.

 

I have been put in the friend zone many times. This isn't a true "friend." Most guys take a woman calling you "friend" as the ultimate insult. I don't, because anything less than hostility from a woman is better than I would have expected.

 

But I do know that the term "friend", in this context generally means something along the lines of:

"I couldn't care less if he lived or died, but I won't be actively hostile towards him. I may say something friendly from time to time, but I am only stringing him along in case he becomes of some use to me."

 

It's sad to think that most of the women out there would think of me as not being capable of being their husband because I won't allow myself to have sex outside of marriage.

 

As much as I disagree with the article, it does make me feel sad, because a lot of it rings true. Marriage had always been seen as a positive for society because it allows the so-called "beta" males to have some chance of reproducing, lays a foundation for civilization, and stops the less-desirable guys from murdering the ladies man.

 

But I still can't help but think: if the "beta" men hadn't been forced to make great inventions, or make money, or anything along those lines, he would have no chance of pulling any woman away from the "alpha."

 

Is that all that marriage based civilization is? A bunch of beta males that women aren't attracted to making advances that the alphas don't need to make in order to get a woman who isn't attracted to him, and would prefer her previous days of having sex with the alphas? Settling for a consolation prize of a guy she never liked, because he was able to do something of value, and because the alpha didn't find her desirable enough?

 

I hate this way of thinking, but I can't help but think there is some level of truth to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Jegsy's comments did give me some level of relief.

 

I suspect, though, that most women would immediately put you into the "friend" zone if you weren't actively pursuing sex.

 

It really hurts, but most people are hopelessly corrupt, and the few people with values are looked upon negatively.

 

I have been put in the friend zone many times. This isn't a true "friend." Most guys take a woman calling you "friend" as the ultimate insult. I don't, because anything less than hostility from a woman is better than I would have expected.

 

But I do know that the term "friend", in this context generally means something along the lines of:

"I couldn't care less if he lived or died, but I won't be actively hostile towards him. I may say something friendly from time to time, but I am only stringing him along in case he becomes of some use to me."

 

It's sad to think that most of the women out there would think of me as not being capable of being their husband because I won't allow myself to have sex outside of marriage.

 

As much as I disagree with the article, it does make me feel sad, because a lot of it rings true. Marriage had always been seen as a positive for society because it allows the so-called "beta" males to have some chance of reproducing, lays a foundation for civilization, and stops the less-desirable guys from murdering the ladies man.

 

But I still can't help but think: if the "beta" men hadn't been forced to make great inventions, or make money, or anything along those lines, he would have no chance of pulling any woman away from the "alpha."

 

Is that all that marriage based civilization is? A bunch of beta males that women aren't attracted to making advances that the alphas don't need to make in order to get a woman who isn't attracted to him, and would prefer her previous days of having sex with the alphas? Settling for a consolation prize of a guy she never liked, because he was able to do something of value, and because the alpha didn't find her desirable enough?

 

I hate this way of thinking, but I can't help but think there is some level of truth to it.

Most women do not put you in the "friend-zone" if you aren't pursing sex. The "friend-zone" is a fabricated thought made by men who can't take rejection, or by men who weren't clear enough with their intentions from the beginning.

 

Someone putting you in the "friend-zone" isnt a true friend? Wow. I wonder what my friend of 6 years is then, when I rejected dating her in the 8th grade.

 

Women are not obligated to date men they do not find romantically appealing, if they don't like the fact someone is WTM, then okay. It is a perfectly okay deal-breaker to have.

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't help but laugh at this article.  The author makes himself out to be some kind of relationship expert, but all of his arguments are based on generalizations including but not limited to:

  • There are no virgins at the age of 26 or older in the West
  • All women will find you unattractive if you don't sleep with them
  • Romance is purposeless without sex
  • Men and women can't be "just friends"

There's a little truth sprinkled here and there, but for the most part the article is bunk.  Besides, it's hard to take "relationship" advice from a guy that runs a site on bedding as many women as possible.  <_<

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Others don’t have to agree with my breakdown, but here it is. I did see some of his points, but his distortion of some things far outweighed his good assumptions, in my eyes.

 

     So, this is just MY thoughts on the matter, and how I see the differences between a believer and a follower.

     Saying he ‘was arguably the most devout believer there’ is, in and of itself, arguable.

     At best he was a ‘devout follower’. Though I would not say he was a devout follower of his faith, but the people in his faith. what he was told to do, and what he was told made him a ‘good’ follower. Knowing hymns, and serving as an alter boy are not proof of belief. One can be attributed to good memory, the other could be belief OR the want to please family. So, not proof. A deep connection with God doesn’t just go away. If you lose it at some point, you WANT it back. You pray a lot, you study a lot, you search yourself… a LOT. You find your way back. It’s called ‘accepting’ what happened, and knowing God had a reason.

     The difference?

     A ‘believer’ is someone who follows their own heart, FEELS in their heart that something is RIGHT. Someone who, maybe, goes through a lot of bad stuff, or thinks and searches themselves, but always comes back to their faith.

     A ‘follower’ doesn’t think of how they feel. They do what is expected, or desired of them. They don’t go through trials and tribulations and stay true to who they are and what the believe. They do as they are told, until/unless they don’t have to.

     A BELIEVER’S perceptions might change along the way, but this doesn’t change their convictions.

     A FOLLOWER’s perceptions might change along the way, but this does change their convictions.

     As a true believer, if he ever was one, will regret anything he is saying if it goes against his beliefs… when he finally finds his way back.

     True belief is between you and God, not between you and the rest of the world. Maybe the way you show your faith is by living your life to the best of your ability, and striving for a closeness with God.

     Yes, your religion should bring you joy. However, to say that he was disappointed in them because they weren’t joyous, therefore not truly believers, is unfair (and judgmental) of him. This like saying you know what someone is going through deep down. Life is not always a joy. Depression happens.

     Getting voted ‘most likely to become a priest’ is not an endorsement to belief, either. That simply states he was still ACTING a part.

 

    OK, so he wanted to be a priest when he grew up. Fine. Until he realized they don’t get to have sex. OK, once again, fine.

     However, if we even ignore that he uses the ages of 3 to 5 as his scale ages of ‘growing up’ (ages that most people are just starting to learn what religion and sex actually mean, and most don’t fully understand it until SO MUCH later in life), we are still left with the fact that he mentions being Catholic from the age of 5, but being obsessed with sex from the age of 3. I’m not very good at math, but that doesn’t add up in my head.

 

    Jegsy covered most of this with more knowledge of the Bible than I have taken the time to gather. She makes very many good points. I don't really see any reason to go into this part, because she did such a fine job of explaining what he said wrong.

 

     As for his sex ed in 8th grade, and his self proclaimed knowledge on statistics… well, all I have to say is that he has one point. For fuller understanding on any subject, it’s good to have a larger picture, and be able to compare what has been said… in this case between the 19 and the 1. However, it’s entirely possible that knowledge and understanding on herpes was limited. Even if he did study on his own, and depending on WHERE he studied. Which, by the way, he only IMPLIED studying on his own, he didn’t outright state it. Otherwise he wouldn’t know any more or any less than his fellow students. I also agree with him that scare tactics to accomplish a goal is loathsome. The most you will actually be successful in is either those believing that there was a good reason for the tactics taken, or those who find it dreadful and seemingly being lied to because they were not given all of the facts in their entirety.

     Although I see his point, in some sense, that lying is no way to teach. Not giving a full view is not the right way to go. Declaring war on the ‘dating without sex’ people, is just as wrong as people trying to teach you by not giving you all of the facts, or distorting them, just to try and get you to do something a certain way.

 

     As for the comparison of sex and shoes? Yeah, shoes and sex, that’s the same. I’m glad his teacher pointed this out. Seriously, you’re married for years, your spouse starts to fall apart… we do, you know, sort of fall apart… age does that. Do you throw them away for a ‘new’ one? Yeah, if that’s the way you think, a truly good woman is not going to want you anyway.

 

    Taking advice from people who ‘know what they are talking about’… I agree, but I don’t go asking for advice from just anyone, and I don’t ask for credentials, either. Frankly, credentials aren't really worth much. HOW  a person thinks is, and you can know how to think without credentials… just by listening to them.

     I’ve never done a LOT of things, or been through a LOT of situations, but I am, also, terribly good at learning from the mistakes OTHERS make. Some people are capable of this. So, to make an assumption that you have to experience something to be able to advise others about it… well, isn’t that just as bad as all of the statements he has made up to this point?

 

     As for sex and drugs, and their potential downsides. The downsides may be different, but both downsides have the potential to be detrimental to your well being. I could elaborate but, honestly, I think everyone probably knows this part.

 

    So, the story about his teacher and waiting (Go teach! BTW) and how this guy says that if you ‘don’t want a girl to leave’ you should sleep with her if that is what she wants. You can be as picky as you want about whom you sleep with… well, I think this site goes to show that some of us are just that. We are picky, and we have standards. We want to be in love, and married, to sleep with someone. Should I go against my own beliefs just because some guy (that I like and want to be around) won’t give me a commitment without testing me out first? Uhhhh, NO. I don’t want him anyway…  (side note; YES, this IS something I have often thought about… years ago).

 

    Primordial soup talk. Well, I guess that’s up to the scientists, I don’t pretend to understand it. I believe a certain way. So, even if I believed they COULD prove any of this without a shadow of a doubt, I wouldn’t take this guys word for it. His whole premise is based on his personal feelings, his own anger, and his own pain. I feel for him, but probably not the way he’d think.

 

     As for his look on romance and his past relationships. The way I see it is this. He is either a fabulous actor, and these women want to believe he’s something he is not. OR, they actually don’t realize that they want what he wants until it’s too late, and then he won’t even consider them. People aren’t allowed to change?

 

    Romance IS chemistry. However, just like any other kind of chemistry, it doesn’t just happen between ANY TWO elements. If we replace the word ‘elements’ with the word ‘people’, it takes the right two people to react explosively. You don’t need sex to tell you if you’re connecting. Heck, you can connect emotionally and spiritually with someone from the internet. You can tell if it’s a physical reaction by touching hands, hugging, etc, maybe even from knowing them and finding them to be attractive.

    The rest of his ‘romance talk’ and his conclusions, are (like the rest of us) personal. To say that what is best for him is best for everyone, is like telling everyone in the history of mankind that HAS waited that they are idiots. That’s ok. He can think Iâ€m an idiot.

 

     His assumptions about women, and how we think, are simplistic. I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again, we (humans) don’t all think the same. We may agree on some things, we may even have the same views and thoughts as some others, but we do not ALL think the same. Some of us actually DO want a nice guy. His point about paying attention to actions vs words is pretty accurate, but it doesn’t mean we turn a guy down because he’s not trying to sleep with us. Even a good guy will admit that, even if he’s not actively trying to have sex with us, that he’s at least THINKING ABOUT IT. I’ve got news for you, women think these things, too.

 

     I’ll agree that it’s what the other person wants that should be important to you, if you love them, BUT… and this is a huge BUT… if they love you in return, they are not going to ask you to go against a fundamental conviction that is a part of who you are... maybe even who you want to be. If you do, are you really who they fell in love with to begin with?

 

     Much of the article I skimmed, simply because i read for a while and saw only conclusions based on personal experiences that he had problems with. Therefor, his point of view had very little impact on my thoughts.

 

     The question I would ask is to the guys on this forum (or to any guy who SHOULD be here). How do YOU feel about this? How would your view of a women change if she told you that you should go against a personal conviction, or she would leave you? I don’t know about the rest of you, but I don't believe that's love. I’d do what he said, and move on. What about you?

 

Edit: I might add.. I'm 34... and a virgin, waiting until marriage. I, apparently, don't exist.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly, as far as his statements concerning women go, I really don't know if I can dismiss them.

 

I wish that a woman could be attracted to a "beta" male who chose to wait. But if he is to be believed, no woman would ever be sexually interested in a guy who wasn't having sex outside of marriage.

 

I try to treat everybody with respect, and I do recognize that it doesn't help with attracting the ladies. I can't help but feeling that even if some lady marries the beta male, it wouldn't be because of attraction. It would be because he is a useful means to an end. I have frequently said that my biggest fears were sexless marriages, and divorce. And both of those could be easily caused by a woman choosing to marry a guy out of convience instead of attraction.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     The question I would ask is to the guys on this forum (or to any guy who SHOULD be here). How do YOU feel about this? How would your view of a women change if she told you that you should go against a personal conviction, or she would leave you? I don’t know about the rest of you, but I don't believe that's love. I’d do what he said, and move on. What about you?

 

Here's the thing, there are plenty of women who will respect a guy who's willing to WTM.  Heck, ideally both of you should be on the same page when it comes to that conviction.  If a woman told me that she'd be unwilling to move forward with me because I refuse to have sex, then I'm out.  Honestly, I'd be less attracted to her at that point because we don't see eye-to-eye on something that I have an unmovable stance on.

 

 

Edit: I might add.. I'm 34... and a virgin, waiting until marriage. I, apparently, don't exist.

 

:lol:

 

 

I wish that a woman could be attracted to a "beta" male who chose to wait. But if he is to be believed, no woman would ever be sexually interested in a guy who wasn't having sex outside of marriage.

 

Dude, look around you.  This site is full of women who believe in WTM, and I'm sure there are plenty others out there with a similar mindset.  Don't look at yourself as a beta because you choose to wait, you have to own it with pride.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the thing, there are plenty of women who will respect a guy who's willing to WTM.  Heck, ideally both of you should be on the same page when it comes to that conviction.  If a woman told me that she'd be unwilling to move forward with me because I refuse to have sex, then I'm out.  Honestly, I'd be less attracted to her at that point because we don't see eye-to-eye on something that I have an unmovable stance on.

Agreed. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if he is to be believed

 

He isn't.

 

 

 

I can't help but feeling that even if some lady marries the beta male, it wouldn't be because of attraction. It would be because he is a useful means to an end. I have frequently said that my biggest fears were sexless marriages, and divorce. And both of those could be easily caused by a woman choosing to marry a guy out of convience instead of attraction.

 

My boyfriend is pretty much exactly the archetypal 'beta male.' I wouldn't have it any other way. (Personally I think the whole alpha/beta male construct is BS, but that's a rant for another thread cuz this guy actually stayed pretty well out of that, for a PUA.) 

 

As for my reaction to the actual article: I mostly ended up feeling really sorry for this guy. It seems that his falling-out with religion blinded him to the valid secular reasons to wait. It also made me sad that he could see no value in marriage aside from the ways in which it can benefit society (though I rolled my eyes more than a bit when I read the part about marriage having no value for men now that getting a wife doesn't also mean getting a free domestic servant).

 

Also, his interpretation of evolution is overly-simplistic for the sake of feeding his point. And I agree with Jegs; his perception of Jesus is more or less the polar opposite of the Jesus I just spent weeks reading about.

 

I might go into more of a point-by-point dissection of this article when I have a bit more time. That was just my initial takeaway after skimming it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

   A ‘believer’ is someone who follows their own heart, FEELS in their heart that something is RIGHT. Someone who, maybe, goes through a lot of bad stuff, or thinks and searches themselves, but always comes back to their faith.

     A ‘follower’ doesn’t think of how they feel. They do what is expected, or desired of them. They don’t go through trials and tribulations and stay true to who they are and what the believe. They do as they are told, until/unless they don’t have to.

     A BELIEVER’S perceptions might change along the way, but this doesn’t change their convictions.

     A FOLLOWER’s perceptions might change along the way, but this does change their convictions.

 

This makes it sound as if the only people who leave their faith (whether for another faith, or atheism, or agnosticism) are people who were never really a part of it to begin with; they were just going through the motions until they stopped pretending to believe. Respectfully, I disagree. I've read plenty of testimonies from people who fully believed in a certain faith's interpretation of God with the entirety of their being, only to realize upon further study and lived experiences that they no longer believe in that God (either switching to not believing in God at all, or instead coming to a far different understanding of God). It usually seems to be a devastating process. It doesn't seem fair to claim that their initial faith was not genuine.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This makes it sound as if the only people who leave their faith (whether for another faith, or atheism, or agnosticism) are people who were never really a part of it to begin with; they were just going through the motions until they stopped pretending to believe. Respectfully, I disagree. I've read plenty of testimonies from people who fully believed in a certain faith's interpretation of God with the entirety of their being, only to realize upon further study and lived experiences that they no longer believe in that God (either switching to not believing in God at all, or instead coming to a far different understanding of God). It usually seems to be a devastating process. It doesn't seem fair to claim that their initial faith was not genuine.

I'm sorry it sounds this way. I guess, in the way I see  what you are saying is that a belief changed. Beliefs can change. I do believe that someone who has a deeply seeded faith in God will come back to it, though, even if it waivers or they lose it for a while. So, whatever you want to label that, that's what I mean. I respect that you may not feel the same way and, as I stated, this is only my view. Much like his conclusions, that I feel are based on his experiences, my experience has been that if the faith is solid then it doesn't go away. Even if it changes.

 

I don't expect everyone to agree. It's just my humble outlook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I am very sorry. I was being unfair. I never intended to make it sound like it wasn't devastating to lose one's faith. However, I would like to point out, that if they are devastated, there may be the possibility that they miss it. That they might hope to come back to it. Just a possibility. When you believe so deeply about something, it becomes a part of you. When I lost my niece (a day shy of 4 months old), 8 years ago, I came really close to losing my faith. I couldn't understand why God had taken her. It took me years of praying, and missing who I was, to come back to God. Strong than I was before... and I don't attend church regularly. Though I'd like to.

 

However, everyone is so different. I was just stating how I, myself, view things. Not as fact, just as a personal view. Sometimes we go through things, and sometimes those things change us profoundly. Sometimes it takes years to get to where we really want to be. I just think, if someone is devastated over losing their faith, they would be a little more careful about what words they use. Guilt over what you said, and could have said differently, can be painful. So, I apologize that I didn't express my view better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been put in the friend zone many times. This isn't a true "friend." Most guys take a woman calling you "friend" as the ultimate insult. I don't, because anything less than hostility from a woman is better than I would have expected.

 

But I do know that the term "friend", in this context generally means something along the lines of:

"I couldn't care less if he lived or died, but I won't be actively hostile towards him. I may say something friendly from time to time, but I am only stringing him along in case he becomes of some use to me."

 

 

Most women do not put you in the "friend-zone" if you aren't pursing sex. The "friend-zone" is a fabricated thought made by men who can't take rejection, or by men who weren't clear enough with their intentions from the beginning.

 

Someone putting you in the "friend-zone" isnt a true friend? Wow. I wonder what my friend of 6 years is then, when I rejected dating her in the 8th grade.

 

Uh...your friend isn't someone who put you in the friend zone. You rejected HER, right?

 

Anyway, Dave is absolutely right. There's a substantial difference in having a true friend and being put in the "friend zone." The former is someone who consistently shows concern for your well-being and takes a genuine interest in your life. (I've encountered this very rarely from women who have rejected me. I can only think of one or two women who rejected me who still continued to show genuine and consistent concern for me). The "friend zone" describes someone who is basically an acquaintance who may be moderately polite when you see each other but proves she doesn't care much about you and may even try to use you. 

 

Nevertheless, women are not inherently wrong to put men in the friend zone, as long as there's no using going on. Just as Dave said, being called a friend is still better than receiving hostility. No one owes me anything, not even friendship, but I'm still not likely to call someone a true friend unless she acts like one.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Mstr Josh, you're absolutely right about that. If you allow yourself to be hurt, manipulated, or used because of your feelings for someone who has made no commitments to you, then you're at fault. If you have expectations for someone that they can't fulfill and never gave you hope that they could, then you're at fault. This is all very true. 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The friend-zone is the rejectees fault, and theirs alone.

 

What if it is nobody's fault? What if one person doesn't find the other attractive, or is already in a relationship?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took what Mr Josh said to mean that it's the rejectee's fault if he gets his feelings hurt for being friend zoned, not that it's his fault he was put in the friend zone to begin with. For instance, if a woman will only date men 6' tall or more, and friend zones you because you don't meet her requirement, it's not your fault you weren't tall enough. It is, however, your fault if you allow yourself to become bitter over the way things turned out.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's exactly what I meant. Where I live, F-zone isnt being rejected, it's being rejected and then allowing your emotions to get your hopes up, allow yourself to be trailed along, etc.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even have the words for this. There are some decent arguments out there for not waiting till marriage, but this one...

 

The generalizations are out of control. Out. Of. Control.

Some highlights:

The notion that men who don't want sex before marriage aren't sexual beings, as in they don't desire sex at all, and aren't capable of attracting good women. Most of the guys I know who waited till marriage have very attractive wives. I guess they don't apply?   

I've noticed this article operates under one particular premise: That all humans (women especially) rely solely on their animal instincts when choosing their SO, and not at all on their intellect or emotional convictions. This is pretty offensive. The science of sex is never absolute, and hardly the same for every person, man or woman. Sure there are basic mating principles, but to act like they perfectly govern the actions of every person is false, and like I said before, offensive.

Yeah, the pretending that 26 year-old virgins don't exist thing. He tries to act like he was kidding, but I don't think he was, unfortunately.

My favorite highlight, however, was this: "Nice guys" who wait for sex aren't sexual creatures (again, they don't desire sex), therefore women's genes won't survive and he'll in turn give the woman sons and daughters that are weak. What in the actual hell?

He also mentioned more than once that couples who marry early to (presumably) consummate end up mostly in divorce soon after. So much for the substantial proof that couples who wait divorce less, heh.

Probably just another case of one trying to rationalize and justify their own obsession with sex. Judging by his other articles, he seems to be yet another self-proclaimed "pick-up artist" blogging their life away. It happens. 

You know how I know this is REALLY bad though? The fact that some of our more liberal members here have shot it down. :P

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now